LPA No. 821 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
LPA No. 821 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision 11 .5 .2011
M/s Indian Oil Corporation ltd. . Appellant
Versus
Neena Goyal and another .. Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the appellant
in LPA No. 821 of 2011
Mr. Deepak Sibal, Advocate for the appellant in
LPA No. 820 of 2011
1. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
2. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ?
M.M.KUMAR, J.
1. This order shall dispose of LPA Nos. 820 and 821 of 2011 as
both the appeals have been filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent
challenging the judgement dated 16.2.2011 whereby CWP No. 2977 of
2009 filed by one Ms. Neena Goyal has been allowed and rest of the writ
petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the view taken by the learned Single
Judge, the Indian Oil Corporation as well as the other writ petitioners in
CWP No. 4555 of 2009 have challenged the directions issued by the learned
Single Judge. In nut shell, the learned Single Judge has held that Ms. Neena
Goyal had applied for allotment of Indane LPG Distributorship at Chunni
(Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib) which was reserved for women of open category.
She applied for allotment in November, 2006. However, there was some
controversy with regard to non submission of proof concerning date of birth
LPA No. 821 of 2011 2
alongwith the application form. Ms. Neena Goyal, however, sent a reply
claiming that she had enclosed her matriculation certificate issued by the
Punjab School Education Board but her date of birth was not mentioned in
that certificate. She further claimed that all other documents as proof of her
date of birth have been sent which include attested copies of Permanent
Account Number issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, LIC
Surrender Value Quotation Certificate issued by the Sr. Branch Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India, Chandigarh. However, it did not find
favour with the Indian Oil Corporation and rejected her application on the
basis of column no. 1(f) of the application format, as advertised in the
Tribune dated 19.6.2006. She did not receive any call letter for interview.
She accordingly approached this Court by filing CWP No. 2977 of 2009. On
26.2.2009, this Court issued interim directions to the Indian Oil Corporation
to permit Ms. Neena Goyal to participate in the interview which was to be
held on 28.2.2009 and the same was subject to the decision of the petition.
The petitioner was interviewed and on evaluation, as per the criterion
adopted by the Selection Committee, she secured 87.07 marks and was
placed at serial no. 1 in the provisional merit list.
2. Learned counsel for the Indian Oil Corporation placed reliance
on column no. 1(f) of the application form and clause 13(g) and (h) and has
argued that no other document was admissible as a proof of date of birth
except the matriculation certificate or secondary school certificate and
therefore the other documents sent by Ms. Neena Goyal were irrelevant.
Placing reliance on clause 13(g) it has been argued that no additional
documents were to be accepted or considered after the cut off date and
reliance was placed on clause 13(h) of the guide-lines for allotment of
LPA No. 821 of 2011 3
dealership which provided that the applications which were incomplete in
any respect were not to be considered and no correspondence was to be
entertained in that regard. The learned Single Judge after referring to the
requirement of age which was fixed at 21 years on the date of application
and other documents on which reliance was placed by the Indian Oil
Corporation -appellant came to the conclusion that the petitioner had
attached matriculation certificate 27.6.1986 (P.6) issued by the Punjab
School Education Board although the same did not mention her date of
birth. In addition she has attached attested copies of Permanent Account
Number Card issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala, Income
Tax Returns and the LIC Surrender Value Quotation Certificate issued by
the Sr. Branch Manager LIC, Chandigarh which clearly depicted her date of
birth to be 31.7.1971. The aforesaid fact was not disputed. According to the
learned Single Judge all that required to be proved for eligibility as per
column 2(b) of the advertisement was that a candidate should not be less
than 21 years of age on the date of application and in that context column 1
(f) the date of birth on the date of application was required to be filled in.
Unfortunately, the matriculation certificate issued by the Punjab School
Education Board did not mention her date of birth which could not be made
the basis for declaring her as ineligible for allotment of dealership. The
observations of the learned Single Judge in that regard regards thus:
“…. The petitioner had submitted the Matriculation Certificate
and had also submitted other documents in proof of her date of
birth, which when taken into consideration show that she was
more than 21 years of age on the date of submission of her
application. No doubt, two documents have been mentioned
LPA No. 821 of 2011 4which are required to be attached with the application in
support of the age of the applicant but the intention primarily
being to ascertain the age of the applicant to determine the
eligibility, does not disentitle a candidate from consideration if
the document so required is not containing the said information
especially when the said document has been issued by the
competent Authority on which the applicant has no control and
has been issued as per the rules and regulations governing that
institute. The petitioner cannot be, thus, held ineligible nor can
she be held disentitled to the right of consideration for
allotment of a dealership.”
In view of the above, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
petition and the letters dated 10.2.2009 (P.4) and 19.2.2009 (P.10)
challenged by Ms. Neena Goyal have been set aside. She has been held
eligible for consideration for allotment of Indane (LPG) Distributorship at
Chunni (Fatehgarh Sahib).
3. We have learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length
and have perused the documents with their able assistance.
4. It has come on record that Ms. Neena Goyal has produced her
matriculation certificate (P.6) issued by the Punjab School Education Board
which does not incorporate her date of birth. There cannot be any fault
imputable to the candidate like Ms. Neena Goyal if the Punjab School
Education Board has not recorded her date of birth in the certificate. It is not
that there is only one document which discloses the date of birth and the
same can be verified from other material documents. It, at best, is a mere
irregularity which is not fatal to the consideration of the appellant for
LPA No. 821 of 2011 5
allotment of distributorship of LPG. Even otherwise most meritorious
person should not be dis-regarded merely on a technical reason which in
sum and substance has fulfilled the basic requirement. We find no merit in
both the appeals and the same do not warrant admission. Accordingly both
the appeals are hereby dismissed.
A copy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeal.
(M.M.Kumar)
Judge
(A.N.Jindal)
11.5.2011 Judge
okg